The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group. From a liberal standpoint (and the standpoint of many non-liberals as well), it is important that every individual has the right to equal existence amongst their fellow human beings. Therefore, Altman’s justification for regulation of hate speech appeals to an intrinsically valuable liberal belief. Altman’s prescription not only appeals to the concerns ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing its targets down, therefore people must learn to successfully overcome the feelings that it intends to induce. Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it.
Although Infanticide is considered to be morally wrong because it is an act of killing, overall, there are several cases instances where Infanticide would be morally right. Many argue that Infanticide is morally wrong. Infanticide is the act of killing an infant. Killing an infant deprives it of all the experiences and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted the infant’s future. An infant is considered a person.
This ideology is formed to prevent ethnocentrism, or the belief that one’s culture is superior to another. Though in theory this sounds plausible, it does little to promote an understanding of different cultures. Since the society makes up the laws that dictates and protects its own people, universal laws of protection may not be applied. Cultural rights are important in that they protect individual cultures against the majority states and communities. (Donnelly 219).
They believe that they are not the ones to judge other cultures about what is ethical because morals are learned from people’s societies and are relative. Those who believe in ethical relativism do not view ethics as a universal standard, so they do not form their own opinions about what is immoral or unethical and instead remain neutral to the subject. Cultural and ethical relativists are similar in the fact that they both consider actions of a culture to be due to their society and realize that cultural practices have a reasoning behind
How are the people, oppressed by others and by the government, supposed to react? Certainly, they do not enjoy being treated unjustly, however, they should still obey the laws. Is it to the laws of the land that command total submission or to his convictions by which he is convinced that the system is totally unjust? Therefore, how should citizens defend their liberties, without using violence or disobeying the law, if they think it’s unjust? If an individual obeys the law, he would automatically be thought of supporting the unjust system but in case he does not, he would be accused of disobeying the law.
Because no matter what you would believe, you would also have to believe that someone else was as equally correct as... ... middle of paper ... ... It leaves one with no answers, just because one lives in a different culture it makes it all right to kill because that is what others do. This is not a valid argument and doesn’t help in any way for people to describe why we are the way we are. Although that might not be the role of philosophy, I would contend that it plays an important part in understanding a theory of how it is we should live our life. Moreover it doesn’t leave us with any truths to the validity of their actions.
To have an abortion is unethical to kill a fetus and think it is acceptable through the eyes of society. Evidently, pulling a fetus out with forceps or the suction machine and sticking scissors through the back of the fetus head is unethical. It is a violent act that is harmful to the fetus. In addition, to have the debate whether a fetus is a human or not is unethical, it is a form of life with potential. It is also unethical to terminate a potential life.
In many countries abortion is illegal. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong, so why is not abortion?
The genocide of the Indigenous American as presented in the book American Holocaust was explained as one of the most terrible experiences in history. Even though the American Indians discovered the New World, the Europeans, arrived and quickly established ownership of the land by force. In the novel The Labyrinth of Solitude, it discusses the experience and culture of the Mexican. The Mexicans wanted a sense of solitude because of their beliefs and their history. In conclusion, both novels, provided an educational understanding and cultural history, about native
Which is a factual statement in that it states that if someone is dead they obviously cannot participate in future events. In Marquis’ second premise, he states that by not allowing a human being to have those future experiences your action is prima facie (accepted as correct until proven otherwise) morally wrong. Marquis argues about how it is wrong to kill someone but it is even worse than other crimes because you are taking away that person’s future and values. Marquis argues how not allowing a child to live is morally wrong to our society because they also have a future and experiences they would miss out on just like all human beings. So Marquis is communicating that fetuses, infants, adults are all human beings and it would be